So wait, is this about being nobble or is it about being legal?
Because, in the USA, it is just fine to leave his papers unburnt and in fact, burning his papers would be in direct contravention of the constitution where it says, "In order promote the progress of science and the useful arts..." destruction ain't promotion. Since Kafka did not register a copyright for his unpublished works, he had no copyright in them after his death.
Video Help is your friend - look up your dvd player and crack it. Chances are good your player is easily hackable to disable the unskippable crap. If yours isn't on the list, at least you now have a list of what DVD players to consider buying when you want to upgrade.
Hardly a nobble approach. One's will should be obeyed after one's death
Ok, when I die, I want someone to hunt you down and kill you too. That's just as nobble as giving Kafka what he wanted.
Re:That's just ridiculous
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
Here is some news: Some things are not free. Some things are not your property. If you did not create $ITEM, you have no rights whatsoever to $ITEM until the creator/owner agrees to assign such rights.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Let me demonstrate how it really works: Some things are free. Some things are not your property. If you create $ITEM, you have no rights whatsoever to $ITEM until the public/society agrees to assign you such rights. You really should understand this because the internet is here to rub it in your face.
but even moreso if the movie does well], it will send FOX the message that there's nothing [fiscally] wrong with totally buggering up the handling of a series.
I think FOX has already got that message.
Recently, they seem to be even more quick-on-the-trigger to cancel shows - and then release them on DVD. Some examples over the last few years:
Futurama (cancelled with more than 1 season still in the can) The Family Guy Dark Angel (renewed for a 3rd season and then 2 weeks later suddenly cancelled) Wonderfalls (cancelled after 4-5 episodes) True Calling (renewed for a 2nd season, 6 episodes shot but never aired until 5 of the 6 are aired as filler for the time slot of...) Point Pleasant (cancelled world-wide after 7 or 8 episodes)
and of course Firefly.
Based on the above semi-time-ordered list, the time to cancel seems to be getting shorter with each new season. All of the above have DVD releases already, except Point Pleasant which Fox has made strong noises about releasing this Fall, Family Guy even came BACK after DVD sales did so well.
So, I think it is the general sucess of TV on DVD that is driving Fox (and other networks) to cancel shows quicker and more often. They figure that they can still make back their losses on DVD sales instead.
Of course they didn't. You know why? Because, "Students who violate the computer policy will be disciplined" does not imply that criminal charges will be filed. It implies that the students could receive in-school sanction.
Clearly you have misread the warning, in truth it said, "Students who violate the computer policy will be ass-raped repeatedly." That does imply felony charges or possibly just forcing violators to join the school wrestling team.
This is one of those instances where it might be favorable to have a National identification.
At which point instead of forging SS cards and driver's licenses, the identity thieves will forge national ids instead. Plus, that nice big centralized database for the entire country will make a hugely tempting target to steal, it would be the motherlode of identity theft.
You just know that the government will be outsourcing the Real-ID database work to private cronies, er, companies who in turn will do the bare minimum to protect the data.
Although I agree with you about the stupidity of smart ethernet controllers, the interesting thing about this one is that it claims to not need to transition to kernel space to set up a packet for sending. In principle, that might actually make a difference in throughput...it it's true.
The thing driving smart ethernet cards is stuff like rdma and scsi over ip. The part of thinking behind it for rdma is that the card exerts the same load on the host as local dma (i.e. almost none). For scsi over ip, they think that doing scsi is already enough for the host cpu so let it treat the network interface as "send it and forget it."
As for avoiding the kernel context switch, I haven't looked at how this card is implemented, but with the right smarts on the card, and a replacement socket library, they could enable each process to talk directly to the card - bypassing the kernel once stuff is initialized - kind of the way an X server can talk directly to the frame-buffer without involving the kernel.
Jerry Pournelle had a column in the February 2005 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal about Gigabit hardware. If you have a Gigabit PCI card, expect to see a doubling of speed over 100Mb PCI card. If the motherboard has a built-in Gigabit port, you can see a five to six times speed over 100Mb PCI card or port. PCI cards are limited by the PCI bus, but built-in ports have direct access.
Pournelle is an idiot.
But, from the sound of it, he got it right. But then again, a broken watch is still right two times a day.
Seriously, the guy has written good fiction in books and lots of bad fiction in his columns. You can not take anything he says at face value, chances are he missed one or two or 10 key facts about whatever he's going on about today.
That's bogus. One could easily make the reverse claim - government social programs don't work because today there are people that aren't being helped. Sounds like a myth of government social programs to me.
2) People (especially the rich) are greedy bastards, how do I know this? According to a report that ran on NPR a few months back, the middle class give 6 times as much to charity per dollar of income than the rich.
Prepare yourself for some cognitive dissonace. Those numbers you heard were misleading. They leave out all households that give nothing to charity. They also had very sparse sampling of upper income households.
When the entire population is accounted for, you find that higher levels of giving (as a percentage of disposable income) are correlated with higher levels of income.
With taxes those rich bastards are forced to pay their fair share regradless of if they want to or not
Assuming your were right about them not giving more already, just what about the last two centuries leads you to believe that the "rich bastards" won't just have the politicians (whom are universally members of the rich bastard's club) write enough loopholes into the law so that they legally don't have to "pay their fair share" anyway?
Why bother with all the overhead of taxation if the people who most "deserve" to be taxed will just weasle out while everyone else is left with an oppresive burden?
Funny that your "logical" response did not get modded up at all.
Rebuttal to 1:
You ignore the creation of charities. A lot of Libertarians believe that the government has usurped the role of charities, including but not limited to providing healthcare to the needy.
Rebuttal to 2:
Society will then start paying more for people to to do "undesirable but essential" jobs. Being essential is pretty much the definition of being paid for no matter what.
Re:Take THAT, space science nay-sayers!
on
Glass In Spaaaaace
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, it can cost $7000 or so per kilo to bring it down from orbit, and it may still will in 50 years. But so what? How much will $7000 buy 50 years from today? Not as much as it does now, that's for sure.
Knock, knock! Econ 101 is calling.
Inflation will increase that $7000/kg just much as it will devalue the $7000. So, based on your hypothetical of it not getting any cheaper to bring stuff out of orbit, 50 years from now it is going to cost a heck of a lot more than $7000/kg.
Ah yes, the great libertarian fantasy that money can buy happiness for everyone, including the people who don't have any money.
Not in the least. The value of a monetary system is that it covers more needs for more people than any other system devised by man so far. To paraphrase Churchill, money is the worst economic tool, except for all those others that have been tried.
As for the rest of your screed, that's marketing, not capitalism. And while I, and people like the editors of The Economist think that marketing must undergo fundamental changes in the way the service is performed, its not on topic for this subthread.
If you want to get the most bang for your buck with that Master's degree - go to an "old school" type of engineering company. Most smaller shops and leading edge places put little value in a master's degree - because for 95% of the work out there it doesn't mean jack.
But, the slower moving places will give you an initial bump in salary just for having the degree. Places like government contractors and the really big corps like HP and IBM.
Don't fool yourself though, no matter how much "book larnin'" you got, it is real-world experience that matters. If you are a smart fellow, you should be able to get more value out of the real world experience that comes your way than others do. But until you at have at least some of it under your belt, you aren't going to be any more productive than the kid next to you fresh from college with a BS.
Capitalism cares nothing about privacy, only money.
Money is fungible, thus it has the mostly unique ability to be a proxy for anyone's interests.
In this case, "capitalism" DOES care about privacy because marketer's lack of caring has started to affect their bottom line. Their loss of money is the "privacy issue's" way of hitting them over the head in a capitalist economy.
But, like any "good" capitalist, they are trying to solve their problems with privacy by the cheapest means possible. Instead of actually implementing some sort of robust privacy protections, they are trying to brainwash people into thinking it doesn't matter.
Chances are, the brainwashing approach will fail, but "they" don't know that and brainwashing is a hell of a lot cheaper than fixing the root problem so "they" have decided to give brainwashing a chance and see what happens.
Once "they" realize the cheap and easy approach won't fix their problems they will look at more expensive options. Those might include fixing the root problem but they may also include cheaper options like bribing MS and the anti-spyware companies to do what "they" want and no what the company's customers want. Maybe that will work, maybe it won't and they will have to move on to the next most expensive option.
Eventually either they will fix their problems with privacy one way or another and I believe the chances are good that it solution will end up being better privacy protection just because none of the cheaper alterantives will improve the bottom line.
Smart companies should see that farting around with the intermediate options is a bigger money loser than just going directly to implementing better privacy, dumb ones will have to exhaust the other options and be lead by money like a bull with a ring in its nose to the same end result.
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Wicker Park cost about $30M and is lucky to be considered even slightly better than average.
There are hundreds of more examples just like those.
Stars cost too much money, coke costs too much money, but movies don't have to - its just traditional since they've had a free ride on the copyright monopoly.
If a hacker can gain access to a Windows machine via wireless (and they can according to this account), then they would be able to (and might have) accessed wireless networks outside the meeting room but inside the corporate firewall.
Anyone doing even halfway decent wireless networking in the corporate environment is simply using the wlan as a transport layer for a VPN. Without the VPN you can't get anywhere.
Source code (versus object code) is well on its way to being universally considered speech by the US court system. At the base of the rulings and opinions is that source is meant to communicate ideas between humans (versus object code which is meant to control computers and is not generally considered human-readable). Thus it falls into the category that contains all the other methods of human communications - speech or more broadly expression.
If there was some law against, say, picking your nose, but 99% of the population thought that was a stupid law and openly flaunted it, I wouldn't feel the need to keep the fact that I pick my nose secret from the govt, even though it's illegal, because if they tried to do anything about it, everybody would side with me.
What if only 75% thought it was a stupid law?
Or what if only 25% thought it was a stupid law and 50% didn't care because they don't pick their nose anyway?
The fact that at least a large minority, if not a majority, of the population think smoking pot is no big thing, has not done much to curb the ridiculous laws and sentencing guidelines like 3-strikes, etc.
Your dream of an open, secretless utopia is just that - a utopia. There will always be political power structures of one nature or another and privacy is one of the strongest defenses against the abuse those power structures inevitably enable.
So I put a George Carlin quote at the begining of each module from brain droppings. No one except the small group of developers I work with would ever see it right. Unfortunately all of our code got subpoena.
You are lucky you weren't bankrupted.
That was a copyright violation and lawyers actually got to look at it. I'm surprised they didn't extend a "little professional curtesy" to Sony's lawyers, or whoever owns of all Carlin's work and inform them of your heinous crime so that they could begin pro$ecution against you.
Slashdot Mirror
Killing me would -- most likely -- be illegal.
So wait, is this about being nobble or is it about being legal?
Because, in the USA, it is just fine to leave his papers unburnt and in fact, burning his papers would be in direct contravention of the constitution where it says, "In order promote the progress of science and the useful arts..." destruction ain't promotion. Since Kafka did not register a copyright for his unpublished works, he had no copyright in them after his death.
unskippable trailers/clips/FBI warnings/whatever
Video Help is your friend - look up your dvd player and crack it. Chances are good your player is easily hackable to disable the unskippable crap. If yours isn't on the list, at least you now have a list of what DVD players to consider buying when you want to upgrade.
Hardly a nobble approach. One's will should be obeyed after one's death
Ok, when I die, I want someone to hunt you down and kill you too.
That's just as nobble as giving Kafka what he wanted.
Here is some news: Some things are not free. Some things are not your property. If you did not create $ITEM, you have no rights whatsoever to $ITEM until the creator/owner agrees to assign such rights.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Let me demonstrate how it really works: Some things are free. Some things are not your property. If you create $ITEM, you have no rights whatsoever to $ITEM until the public/society agrees to assign you such rights. You really should understand this because the internet is here to rub it in your face.
If Kafka has a problem with it, let him do something about it. Until then, tough shit.
I worked for FP for years, I could tell you some wild stories about the PXL.
Woohoo! Amateur Pixelvision-pr0n!
but even moreso if the movie does well], it will send FOX the message that there's nothing [fiscally] wrong with totally buggering up the handling of a series.
I think FOX has already got that message.
Recently, they seem to be even more quick-on-the-trigger to cancel shows - and then release them on DVD. Some examples over the last few years:
Futurama (cancelled with more than 1 season still in the can)
The Family Guy
Dark Angel (renewed for a 3rd season and then 2 weeks later suddenly cancelled)
Wonderfalls (cancelled after 4-5 episodes)
True Calling (renewed for a 2nd season, 6 episodes shot but never aired until 5 of the 6 are aired as filler for the time slot of...)
Point Pleasant (cancelled world-wide after 7 or 8 episodes)
and of course Firefly.
Based on the above semi-time-ordered list, the time to cancel seems to be getting shorter with each new season. All of the above have DVD releases already, except Point Pleasant which Fox has made strong noises about releasing this Fall, Family Guy even came BACK after DVD sales did so well.
So, I think it is the general sucess of TV on DVD that is driving Fox (and other networks) to cancel shows quicker and more often. They figure that they can still make back their losses on DVD sales instead.
Of course they didn't. You know why? Because, "Students who violate the computer policy will be disciplined" does not imply that criminal charges will be filed. It implies that the students could receive in-school sanction.
Clearly you have misread the warning, in truth it said, "Students who violate the computer policy will be ass-raped repeatedly." That does imply felony charges or possibly just forcing violators to join the school wrestling team.
This is one of those instances where it might be favorable to have a National identification.
At which point instead of forging SS cards and driver's licenses, the identity thieves will forge national ids instead. Plus, that nice big centralized database for the entire country will make a hugely tempting target to steal, it would be the motherlode of identity theft.
You just know that the government will be outsourcing the Real-ID database work to private cronies, er, companies who in turn will do the bare minimum to protect the data.
Although I agree with you about the stupidity of smart ethernet controllers, the interesting thing about this one is that it claims to not need to transition to kernel space to set up a packet for sending. In principle, that might actually make a difference in throughput...it it's true.
The thing driving smart ethernet cards is stuff like rdma and scsi over ip. The part of thinking behind it for rdma is that the card exerts the same load on the host as local dma (i.e. almost none). For scsi over ip, they think that doing scsi is already enough for the host cpu so let it treat the network interface as "send it and forget it."
As for avoiding the kernel context switch, I haven't looked at how this card is implemented, but with the right smarts on the card, and a replacement socket library, they could enable each process to talk directly to the card - bypassing the kernel once stuff is initialized - kind of the way an X server can talk directly to the frame-buffer without involving the kernel.
Jerry Pournelle had a column in the February 2005 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal about Gigabit hardware. If you have a Gigabit PCI card, expect to see a doubling of speed over 100Mb PCI card. If the motherboard has a built-in Gigabit port, you can see a five to six times speed over 100Mb PCI card or port. PCI cards are limited by the PCI bus, but built-in ports have direct access.
Pournelle is an idiot.
But, from the sound of it, he got it right. But then again, a broken watch is still right two times a day.
Seriously, the guy has written good fiction in books and lots of bad fiction in his columns. You can not take anything he says at face value, chances are he missed one or two or 10 key facts about whatever he's going on about today.
1) There are people that aren't being helped
That's bogus. One could easily make the reverse claim - government social programs don't work because today there are people that aren't being helped. Sounds like a myth of government social programs to me.
2) People (especially the rich) are greedy bastards, how do I know this? According to a report that ran on NPR a few months back, the middle class give 6 times as much to charity per dollar of income than the rich.
Prepare yourself for some cognitive dissonace. Those numbers you heard were misleading. They leave out all households that give nothing to charity. They also had very sparse sampling of upper income households.
When the entire population is accounted for, you find that higher levels of giving (as a percentage of disposable income) are correlated with higher levels of income.
Charitable Giving: How Much, By Whom, To What, and Why."
With taxes those rich bastards are forced to pay their fair share regradless of if they want to or not
Assuming your were right about them not giving more already, just what about the last two centuries leads you to believe that the "rich bastards" won't just have the politicians (whom are universally members of the rich bastard's club) write enough loopholes into the law so that they legally don't have to "pay their fair share" anyway?
Why bother with all the overhead of taxation if the people who most "deserve" to be taxed will just weasle out while everyone else is left with an oppresive burden?
Funny that your "logical" response did not get modded up at all.
Rebuttal to 1:
You ignore the creation of charities. A lot of Libertarians believe that the government has usurped the role of charities, including but not limited to providing healthcare to the needy.
Rebuttal to 2:
Society will then start paying more for people to to do "undesirable but essential" jobs. Being essential is pretty much the definition of being paid for no matter what.
Yes, it can cost $7000 or so per kilo to bring it down from orbit, and it may still will in 50 years. But so what? How much will $7000 buy 50 years from today? Not as much as it does now, that's for sure.
Knock, knock! Econ 101 is calling.
Inflation will increase that $7000/kg just much as it will devalue the $7000. So, based on your hypothetical of it not getting any cheaper to bring stuff out of orbit, 50 years from now it is going to cost a heck of a lot more than $7000/kg.
What kind of name is that?
.NET.Shell
Microsoft
Only
ActiveShell
DirectShell
Ah yes, the great libertarian fantasy that money can buy happiness for everyone, including the people who don't have any money.
Not in the least. The value of a monetary system is that it covers more needs for more people than any other system devised by man so far. To paraphrase Churchill, money is the worst economic tool, except for all those others that have been tried.
As for the rest of your screed, that's marketing, not capitalism. And while I, and people like the editors of The Economist think that marketing must undergo fundamental changes in the way the service is performed, its not on topic for this subthread.
If you want to get the most bang for your buck with that Master's degree - go to an "old school" type of engineering company. Most smaller shops and leading edge places put little value in a master's degree - because for 95% of the work out there it doesn't mean jack.
But, the slower moving places will give you an initial bump in salary just for having the degree. Places like government contractors and the really big corps like HP and IBM.
Don't fool yourself though, no matter how much "book larnin'" you got, it is real-world experience that matters. If you are a smart fellow, you should be able to get more value out of the real world experience that comes your way than others do. But until you at have at least some of it under your belt, you aren't going to be any more productive than the kid next to you fresh from college with a BS.
Capitalism cares nothing about privacy, only money.
Money is fungible, thus it has the mostly unique ability to be a proxy for anyone's interests.
In this case, "capitalism" DOES care about privacy because marketer's lack of caring has started to affect their bottom line. Their loss of money is the "privacy issue's" way of hitting them over the head in a capitalist economy.
But, like any "good" capitalist, they are trying to solve their problems with privacy by the cheapest means possible. Instead of actually implementing some sort of robust privacy protections, they are trying to brainwash people into thinking it doesn't matter.
Chances are, the brainwashing approach will fail, but "they" don't know that and brainwashing is a hell of a lot cheaper than fixing the root problem so "they" have decided to give brainwashing a chance and see what happens.
Once "they" realize the cheap and easy approach won't fix their problems they will look at more expensive options. Those might include fixing the root problem but they may also include cheaper options like bribing MS and the anti-spyware companies to do what "they" want and no what the company's customers want. Maybe that will work, maybe it won't and they will have to move on to the next most expensive option.
Eventually either they will fix their problems with privacy one way or another and I believe the chances are good that it solution will end up being better privacy protection just because none of the cheaper alterantives will improve the bottom line.
Smart companies should see that farting around with the intermediate options is a bigger money loser than just going directly to implementing better privacy, dumb ones will have to exhaust the other options and be lead by money like a bull with a ring in its nose to the same end result.
If Linux really wants to become a player
Linux doesn't want anything. It isn't a person, it isn't a corporate person, it isn't a country.
If you want linux to become a player, go ahead and do whatever you feel is necessary.
-- Oct 21, 2001 Osama bin Laden
Now how much more does it cost to produce a movie?
Well, probably on the order of many tens of millions of dollars.
Only if you are wasteful. For example:
Garden State cost about $2.5M and was great.
Wicker Park cost about $30M and is lucky to be considered even slightly better than average.
There are hundreds of more examples just like those.
Stars cost too much money, coke costs too much money, but movies don't have to - its just traditional since they've had a free ride on the copyright monopoly.
If a hacker can gain access to a Windows machine via wireless (and they can according to this account), then they would be able to (and might have) accessed wireless networks outside the meeting room but inside the corporate firewall.
Anyone doing even halfway decent wireless networking in the corporate environment is simply using the wlan as a transport layer for a VPN. Without the VPN you can't get anywhere.
Source code (versus object code) is well on its way to being universally considered speech by the US court system. At the base of the rulings and opinions is that source is meant to communicate ideas between humans (versus object code which is meant to control computers and is not generally considered human-readable). Thus it falls into the category that contains all the other methods of human communications - speech or more broadly expression.
If there was some law against, say, picking your nose, but 99% of the population thought that was a stupid law and openly flaunted it, I wouldn't feel the need to keep the fact that I pick my nose secret from the govt, even though it's illegal, because if they tried to do anything about it, everybody would side with me.
What if only 75% thought it was a stupid law?
Or what if only 25% thought it was a stupid law and 50% didn't care because they don't pick their nose anyway?
The fact that at least a large minority, if not a majority, of the population think smoking pot is no big thing, has not done much to curb the ridiculous laws and sentencing guidelines like 3-strikes, etc.
Your dream of an open, secretless utopia is just that - a utopia. There will always be political power structures of one nature or another and privacy is one of the strongest defenses against the abuse those power structures inevitably enable.
So I put a George Carlin quote at the begining of each module from brain droppings. No one except the small group of developers I work with would ever see it right. Unfortunately all of our code got subpoena.
You are lucky you weren't bankrupted.
That was a copyright violation and lawyers actually got to look at it. I'm surprised they didn't extend a "little professional curtesy" to Sony's lawyers, or whoever owns of all Carlin's work and inform them of your heinous crime so that they could begin pro$ecution against you.
(I'm only half joking.)